Seòmar agus comataidhean

I cannot remember whether it was Mr Salamone or Mr Williams—perhaps it was you, Mr Salamone—who raised the crossover between the way in which Scotland projects itself culturally and its wider democratic, human rights or other aspirations and messages that it wants to get across in those spheres. We have previously talked in the committee about Scotland’s potential for dispute resolution, which some of you have mentioned. Where is the crossover between how we project ourselves culturally and how we project our values? What more can we do in that sphere?

I thank the committee for its work on the petition. Since the committee last considered it, evidence of the need for more islander knowledge on public boards has only increased. The problems with ferry services—not least in South Uist in my constituency, which currently has no direct ferry service to the mainland—have been well rehearsed.

A constant theme throughout all of that and in the petition, and one that I have raised in a members’ business debate and in this context, is the strikingly obvious need to have islanders on the boards of organisations such as Caledonian MacBrayne and CMAL. To quote John Daniel Peteranna from South Uist:

“The goal has to be to make it as easy to live and work on an Island as it is anywhere else ... and without the influence of Islanders on these public bodies controlling Island services the current de-populations trends ... will accelerate.”

Those boards conspicuously lack people who have experience of living on an island that is served by CalMac and who as a result are lobbied daily about ferries. As I said in my previous contribution to the committee, if people were stopped and asked about ferries every time they went out to buy a pint of milk—as I am—they might take a different perspective back to their board meetings. It is also important that these people live in communities where they experience the consequences of things going wrong.

Everyone understands that boards do not and should not take day-to-day operational decisions in organisations such as CalMac but, as the petitioner has put it, they should set the policy, define the way of working and set the culture of the organisation. It is also their duty to hold management to account against the outcomes set by the board.

It is important to note that the call for more island board members should not be seen in isolation. There is, in my view, a wider need for more senior staff from organisations such as CalMac and Transport Scotland based in the Highlands and Islands and for jobs to be dispersed whenever feasible. Many islanders, as well as having lived experience of ferry services, have a wealth of other experience. These are seafaring communities, and their skills should feature prominently in whatever recruitment exercises those organisations run.

With all of that in mind, I am happy to answer the committee’s questions, and I would like to indicate again my support of the petition’s aims.

I acknowledge that the Government has made moves in that direction, but I must also acknowledge that, if I remember rightly—someone will correct me if I am wrong—only one person on the CMAL board lives on an island that is served by the ferries. I do not think that, as yet, anyone on the CalMac board lives on any island that is served by CalMac.

Efforts have been made to look at, for example, the criteria by which people are appointed. Obviously, the Government is at the mercy of whether people actually come forward or not, but the reality is still that those voices are not being heard on those boards.

Perhaps it is not in your remit to say what the alternative is, but that is the big question that we are all considering. What is the alternative for a hospital?

That did actually happen once in committee many years ago.

Can you say anything about numbered traps?

In some of the evidence that we have taken and some of the things that we have looked at, there has been a concentration on the proposed distinction between peatland and non-peatland areas and on questions relating to the 40cm figure for peat depth and all the rest of it. From what you are saying, I am trying to get a picture of whether there is evidence that muirburn per se is responsible for the kinds of fires that you are alluding to, where peat burns on the hill, or whether this is an entirely different type of fire that we are talking about. Is muirburn a factor in the type of fire in which peat burns on the hill?

On that theme, I wonder whether, in coming to a view about banning glue traps, it was envisaged, discussed or debated what that transition would be to, given what Ian Andrew has said. What is the transition to, in schools and hospitals?

Can you explain a little bit about how you came to the conclusion that there was a need for a new regulation around wildlife traps? Are you satisfied with what the bill has done in terms of making your recommendations real?

I want to focus on the licensing system. We have not allowed the witnesses to explain why they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to legislate in order to address abuses. You have mentioned that the vast majority of estates operate responsibly, but what evidence led you to conclude that there is a need for a code of practice, for example? Can you give us a flavour of the incidents and evidence that drew you to the conclusion that a code of practice is necessary?